Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bannock County BOE upholds assessor’s valuation for 3730 Jason Avenue after owner’s appeal
Summary
The Bannock County Board of Equalization heard an appeal from homeowner Julie Anderson about her assessed value and lot-size comparables and voted to uphold the assessor’s valuation after testimony from the assessor’s office and discussion of land-valuation brackets.
The Bannock County Board of Equalization on an administrative hearing (date not specified) upheld the assessor’s valuation for the property identified in testimony as 3730 Jason Avenue after hearing testimony from the property owner and appraisers.
The owner, Julie Anderson, told the board she lives on “1 eighth of an acre” and argued nearby larger lots were being assessed at the same or lower values. Anderson said, “I could fit 10 of my houses in that lot,” and submitted several parcel comparisons and assessed values for board consideration. She asked the board to take those comparables into account when deciding her assessment appeal.
The board’s residential appraiser, Cammie of the assessor’s office, described the appraiser’s analysis of comparables and land allocations and concluded the subject property was “in line with where it needs to be.” Cammie said the assessor’s office found the subject’s land at roughly “$9.87 per square foot” in the assessor’s allocation and cited other nearby allocated land rates (for example, $12.80 and $14.41 per square foot on other parcels). She recommended the board uphold the assessed value.
Board members discussed how the assessor’s office applies land brackets by parcel size. A commissioner noted that parcels smaller than 0.1 acre receive a different valuation, and that the next bracket up (about 0.1–0.5 acres) is being valued at the same neighborhood rate. Commissioners observed the subject property sits “on the cusp” of the breakpoint where a lower land value might apply; one commissioner summarized, “she is really close to that breaking point.”
The board also addressed practical limits of the public parcel viewer and older plat data. Board staff and the assessor explained that some older plats do not show acreage in the public parcel viewer and may require examination of original plats to calculate lot size. The assessor’s office said staff members can look up lot sizes internally even when they are not visible in the public parcel viewer.
After discussion, a motion was made to uphold the assessor’s value for the appeal identified in the record (motion text in transcript: move to uphold the assessed value). The board voted to uphold the assessor’s valuation. The chair said the appellant will receive a letter outlining the decision and that further appeal is available to the State Board of Tax Appeals or in district court.
The hearing record shows Anderson has pursued multiple appeals on this parcel; a commissioner noted this would be the third Board of Equalization review of the parcel in five years.
